Low-cost warfare: US military battles with ‘Costco drones

[ninja_geezer]

interesting read ...


Low-cost warfare: US military battles with ‘Costco drones’

 

[66427cobra]

Why not equip the US military with "Costco drones" and use them to investigate things like the balloon referenced in the article. But I am sure the US has much more sophisticated drones but maybe not enough in the right hands.

 

[brett8883]

They just need to bring out the barrage balloons again with long tassels problem solved

 

[Vic Moss]

This is the third article in the last three days over this. Someone in DC is orchestrating this.

 

[sar104]

This is the third article in the last three days over this. Someone in DC is orchestrating this.

To what end?

 

[RockyMtns]

The battlefield is changing dramatically........ I think that manned aircraft in particular are already obsolete. Drones of all sorts will take over, as I see it......everything from Mavic drones to 500 lb bomb carrying drones to hypersonic missiles that can swarm an aircraft carrier group.
The drone article is both fascinating and sobering............

 

[Vic Moss]

To what end?

D.C is pushing hard to put the screws on Chinese made drones. Their main target is DJI, with Autel not far behind.

We're seeing this more and more with lots of legislation, and not the state of Florida has joined that bandwagon. They're making it illegal for state agencies to use any drone not on a preferred vendor list.

I was sent a bill earlier this week (Text - H.R.5315 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Drone Infrastructure Inspection Grant Act) that on the surface is a great bill for drones. It provides up to $100M to states for infrastructure inspections with drones. It would be great for the drone industry except they define eligible sUAS as "a small unmanned aircraft system that is manufactured or assembled by a company domiciled in the United States that is not subject to influence or control by the Government of the People’s Republic of China."

So basically if this passes, Congress will give states the money but they'd have to use it on inferior drones that cost way too much.

We're fighting this in the DOD funding bill, and it will be part of the 2023 FAA Reauthorization Act.

Right now, "China = bad" in D.C. This likely is one more step in that process.

Drones have been used for this for the last 2 or 3 years. ISIS has used them in Iraq since then. It's not new, so D.C. intervention in the news cycle is the only logical answer for this.

 

[retiredNH]

Vic, well put. When one sees sensationalist stories like the drone ones, one must ask "why", and the answer is usually a business lobby pushing an agenda.

 

[GFields]

Thanks for sharing and the interesting input

 

[sar104]

D.C is pushing hard to put the screws on Chinese made drones. Their main target is DJI, with Autel not far behind.

We're seeing this more and more with lots of legislation, and not the state of Florida has joined that bandwagon. They're making it illegal for state agencies to use any drone not on a preferred vendor list.

I was sent a bill earlier this week (Text - H.R.5315 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Drone Infrastructure Inspection Grant Act) that on the surface is a great bill for drones. It provides up to $100M to states for infrastructure inspections with drones. It would be great for the drone industry except they define eligible sUAS as "a small unmanned aircraft system that is manufactured or assembled by a company domiciled in the United States that is not subject to influence or control by the Government of the People’s Republic of China."

So basically if this passes, Congress will give states the money but they'd have to use it on inferior drones that cost way too much.

We're fighting this in the DOD funding bill, and it will be part of the 2023 FAA Reauthorization Act.

Right now, "China = bad" in D.C. This likely is one more step in that process.

Drones have been used for this for the last 2 or 3 years. ISIS has used them in Iraq since then. It's not new, so D.C. intervention in the news cycle is the only logical answer for this.

I agree with you on all of that, but the articles like the one under discussion here are unrelated to any of this - they are reporting on the military issue of weaponized sUAS. That problem is manufacturer and country agnostic, and is entirely unaffected by any government use restrictions implemented in the US. I don't see any connection at all.

 

[dave canada]

well i would hate to go to war with china I have to mavic pro,s and they go and do missions and have been for me for eight years a few years before skydio started bragging automous I don,t know if the skydio could keep up with my mavic and still find it,s way home. Since I have never had the priviledge but lawerence has a ( Mod Removed Language)of a program it could get scaRY! If skydio will trade me i will find out and if there is a difference in price and program maybe they can send the bill to the legislator,s excuse my spelling I just don,t have time for this BS to worry about it much

 

[stevie gee]

Good article. Scary.

 

[Paul K]

Why not equip the US military with "Costco drones" and use them to investigate things like the balloon referenced in the article. But I am sure the US has much more sophisticated drones but maybe not enough in the right hands.

Probably better to use Something domestically made or with US software. Just warry of hacking.

 

[Prop Wash]

As a U.S. Navy Veteran, I'm all for having our service members be as safe as possible, whether they are in the air, at sea, or on the ground. However, using the example of a multi-million $ drone, which ended up being ineffective, obviously was overkill. How many of us have seen examples of counter-offensive technology that works much better. There are RPG-style shoulder launch mechanisms that launch a small drone that flys to target to deploy a net over the "cheap" drone to stop the rotors and down the craft. There are other drones that launch that are the deterrent. They fly right into the target. There are laser weapons, and signal jamming equipment. There are anti-drone technologies that being developed for airport use that can be adapted for field use -or- quite frankly, the other way around.
TO ME...this article gives the indication the U.S. military has NO clue how to protect themselves. Blaming the increased use of small drones to support that conjecture is wrong. I assure you the military is quite capable. Adapt and defend. Did we suddenly clear the skies over Germany when they produced their first jet-powered fighters? No, we figured out any weaknesses, and how to use what we had to counter them to maintain air-superiority.
Forgive the rantings of an older Veteran who loves his country, but sees, IMO, dumb articles.

 

[sar104]

As a U.S. Navy Veteran, I'm all for having our service members be as safe as possible, whether they are in the air, at sea, or on the ground. However, using the example of a multi-million $ drone, which ended up being ineffective, obviously was overkill. How many of us have seen examples of counter-offensive technology that works much better. There are RPG-style shoulder launch mechanisms that launch a small drone that flys to target to deploy a net over the "cheap" drone to stop the rotors and down the craft. There are other drones that launch that are the deterrent. They fly right into the target. There are laser weapons, and signal jamming equipment. There are anti-drone technologies that being developed for airport use that can be adapted for field use -or- quite frankly, the other way around.
TO ME...this article gives the indication the U.S. military has NO clue how to protect themselves. Blaming the increased use of small drones to support that conjecture is wrong. I assure you the military is quite capable. Adapt and defend. Did we suddenly clear the skies over Germany when they produced their first jet-powered fighters? No, we figured out any weaknesses, and how to use what we had to counter them to maintain air-superiority.
Forgive the rantings of an older Veteran who loves his country, but sees, IMO, dumb articles.

The US military is certainly capable, but that doesn't diminish the problem of emerging threats. I didn't read this article as critical of the military at all, and most of the specific points made were established facts and direct quotes from the military on that subject. Can you point to anything specific here that is inaccurate, or unreasonably slanted?

 

[Prop Wash]

I do agree the military is capable, and I'd be the last to criticize what our service members go through, but look at these two examples: (it's the way the article is written)

"But the balloon episode illustrated the inadequacy of US capabilities to defend against, or even identify, smaller weaponised drones. It is these cheap, small, low-tech enemy drones that are fast becoming one of the most significant threats facing America’s military."

“Air superiority is something that we no longer have all the time in the theatre [military area of operations],” he says. “If you have a drone overfly your base and you’re not able to bring it down, you don’t have air superiority. That doesn’t happen often. But it does happen more than I would like it to happen, and it’s very worrying.”

In his quote, (second example) General Mackenzie states "you're unable to bring it down" - makes it sound TO ME as if he's saying they are helpless sitting ducks. That's where I don't agree.

As I stated, it is MY opinion.

 

[sar104]

I do agree the military is capable, and I'd be the last to criticize what our service members go through, but look at these two examples: (it's the way the article is written)

"But the balloon episode illustrated the inadequacy of US capabilities to defend against, or even identify, smaller weaponised drones. It is these cheap, small, low-tech enemy drones that are fast becoming one of the most significant threats facing America’s military."

“Air superiority is something that we no longer have all the time in the theatre [military area of operations],” he says. “If you have a drone overfly your base and you’re not able to bring it down, you don’t have air superiority. That doesn’t happen often. But it does happen more than I would like it to happen, and it’s very worrying.”

Okay, well if your disagreement is with General McKenzie's assessment then I'm not going to get in the middle of that one, but I don't think it's fair to criticize the author of the article for simply reporting what McKenzie told him. Maybe the use of the word "inadequacy" could be too strong since that wasn't a direct quote, but the article does go on to explain exactly what that amounts to.

In his quote, (second example) General Mackenzie states "you're unable to bring it down" - makes it sound TO ME as if he's saying they are helpless sitting ducks. That's where I don't agree.

I see your point, but I'm pretty certain that he didn't mean that, especially in the context of his earlier comments. I took that as simply saying that the difficulty of detecting and interdicting these things, especially in swarms, diminishes the virtually absolute control of the airspace that that have been used to.

As I stated, it is MY opinion.

Yes - but you argued the case, so that's fine. I actually thought that it was a pretty good article, with virtually no editorializing.

 

[dave canada]

all i,m using my mavic for is a little helpfor my poor retirement fund ain,t trying to be a terriost and not even around any people mostly very rural areas

 

[AZDave]

I do agree the military is capable, and I'd be the last to criticize what our service members go through, but look at these two examples: (it's the way the article is written)

"But the balloon episode illustrated the inadequacy of US capabilities to defend against, or even identify, smaller weaponised drones. It is these cheap, small, low-tech enemy drones that are fast becoming one of the most significant threats facing America’s military."

“Air superiority is something that we no longer have all the time in the theatre [military area of operations],” he says. “If you have a drone overfly your base and you’re not able to bring it down, you don’t have air superiority. That doesn’t happen often. But it does happen more than I would like it to happen, and it’s very worrying.”

In his quote, (second example) General Mackenzie states "you're unable to bring it down" - makes it sound TO ME as if he's saying they are helpless sitting ducks. That's where I don't agree.

As I stated, it is MY opinion.

Articles of any sort tend to use exaggerated language, but the basic gist of those statements is accurate. A close relative of mine recently spent quite a bit of time working on U.S. government-sponsored studies on how to detect incoming drones quickly enough to be able to intercept and destroy them. There is simply not a solution to that yet. Drones can be made too quiet to detect by sound early enough at the speeds they are capable of flying. RF emissions from the motor pulses and microprocessor clocks can be shielded, and that same shielding can protect against defensive jamming. Drones can be preprogrammed to fly autonomously without having to send or receive control signals that would otherwise be detectable (or jammed). (Anybody still wonder why DJI isn't allowing autonomous flight control on their prosumer drones anymore?)

Drones can be programmed to fly evasively. They can be programmed to fly so low as to be either undetected or extremely difficult to target. They can be programmed to fly high overhead and drop things. They can be sent out in swarms of hundreds that do all of those things at the same time. A swarm of drones can be quickly moved, deployed, and launched from anywhere ... unlike whatever sophisticated defensive equipment you think the military might have.

You may prefer to think that our military has this all under control, but thankfully the military knows differently. They are definitely worried about the vulnerability and they are spending a LOT of money on the problem, but there really isn't a solution in sight yet. Even the defensive measures I've seen demonstrated (some of which, like the handheld net gun, border on being comical) cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to take down a single $500-ish drone.

We may eventually find a solution, but cheap drones are here now and at the moment "sitting ducks" seems like a more appropriate term than you think it is.

 

[BethanyFerrell]

everything from Mavic drones

I can see it now — Top Gun Unmanned!

Tom Cruise Missile stars as "Mavic" Mitchell.

Hollywood, interested? Have your people call my people. We're talking many figures here.